I wouldn't doubt that your friend is making at least doubt what he made when he was self employed, even if he strongly disagrees. Not only do you have the classic gross VS net misunderstanding,

Something about that bolded part strikes me cold -- that a small business operator is conflicted about net versus gross... okay.. but that it is CLASSIC (as in often seen?) that is tragic.

Yep. A friend of mine told me she was making $4000 a month doing LuLaRoe. Then she says she is using almost all of it to "grow her business." While buying a van on credit to carry her inventory around. She really doesn't get that that means she is still in the red.

I wouldn't doubt that your friend is making at least doubt what he made when he was self employed, even if he strongly disagrees. Not only do you have the classic gross VS net misunderstanding,

Something about that bolded part strikes me cold -- that a small business operator is conflicted about net versus gross... okay.. but that it is CLASSIC (as in often seen?) that is tragic.

Yep. A friend of mine told me she was making $4000 a month doing LuLaRoe. Then she says she is using almost all of it to "grow her business." While buying a van on credit to carry her inventory around. She really doesn't get that that means she is still in the red.

I think this would be an excellent niche for tradespeople, rather than artists and musicians. I have a lot of friends who work as plumbers / drywall hangers / carpenters and the like who do excellent work but just cannot stay on top of things like billing and scheduling jobs. They hate doing it and it never gets done.

Hell, my brother-in-law runs a landscaping company and constantly forgets to even bill people. His wife brings in a couple "windfalls" a year when she goes through the books and sends bills to delinquent accounts.

Huh. One copy of some scheduling software for different people, one copy of a basic accounting software package, a phone line, a computer, and you're in like Flynn. That could work. You'd have to have everyone pay you first, though, and remit the balance to the contractor that hired you.

LOL, if only. I have owned two successful construction companies. I have supervised for contractors that were so big that my best year in business would represent a rounding error on their taxes. It's amazing how insanely complex operating a construction business can get, and how poorly it's done, even by owners that appear legitimate and successful. The best personal example of this I saw was watching the majority of single family home builders in my region, as they failed during the great recession. The reason for a significant portion of it? Construction company owners who didn't understand that cash flow is not profit. They rode an incredibly long boom and suddenly saw their business drop by 80-90%. They went into survival mode, and downsized, but ended up with huge debts, since they were making very little profit during the boom years, but mistook the huge volume of cash flowing across the desk as success. They had legacy debt at lots of suppliers, from the stream of projects that ended, but no cash flow. They lived very well while gently tapping the flow of cash for personal use, and everything worked as long as they were doing a hell of a lot of volume. Once the tap slowed to a trickle, the shit hit the fan. The complexity can be staggering also. I spent about half a year working on a multi-million dollar mediation where it came down to battles over scheduling on a large public project. Not only were there law firms involved who specialized in this specific part of contract law, but both sides had witnesses who did nothing but assault the other party's ability to properly schedule the job. Pretty amazing to see a sleazy subcontractor walk away with a million bucks, since he scammed a mediator into believing that he could never of hoped to do the job properly, or in a timely manner, since the general contractor's scheduling incompetence made it impossible to perform. One you get bigger than a truck or two, and a handful of employees, it's an ugly game, and the weak get eaten pretty regularly.

True. I think the goal was to market a service to mom-and-pop shops and owner/operator types. Sad about the lack of understanding the difference between cash flow and profit.

OldJob worked with a lot of these sorts of companies. This function was fulfilled for them IF they lucked into an excellent full-charge bookkeeper plus an accountant who would do the income taxes AND point out big-picture items where the company could use improving. If the bookkeeper was only good, or worse was terrible, and the tax-preparer just popped the year-end balances into a tax program and sent out the bill, then this didn't work out so well.

There are a lot of cheap properties in my town because the rental property owner mistook cash flow for profit.

They failed to include set asides for vacancies, repairs, and even property taxes.

I have a friend who inherited a rental property business and he found out they had not were none of the above monies set aside, they hadn't set aside the security deposits, either. (That's illegal.)

I mean, who could ever expect that things would break, people would move out and the place would be vacant for awhile, people would want their security deposits back, or that taxes would come due. Shocking!

And, of course, once they get into that vicious cycle it gets worse, because they don't fix what needs fixing and the quality of tenants drops, which makes everything get worse even faster.

I wouldn't doubt that your friend is making at least doubt what he made when he was self employed, even if he strongly disagrees. Not only do you have the classic gross VS net misunderstanding,

Something about that bolded part strikes me cold -- that a small business operator is conflicted about net versus gross... okay.. but that it is CLASSIC (as in often seen?) that is tragic.

Yep. A friend of mine told me she was making $4000 a month doing LuLaRoe. Then she says she is using almost all of it to "grow her business." While buying a van on credit to carry her inventory around. She really doesn't get that that means she is still in the red.

Clearly basic education has passed by so many...

I did maths until 18 and engineering until 23. Never got taught about revenue, net profit, gross profit etc. Had one 'financial management' class (as in a single two hour lesson, not a regular two hours per week) where we looked at a till receipt. That's it. In 18 years.

RE: the tattoo deal, I think it's a combination of my dad being protective of his baby girls, and my parents not wanting us to make youthful decisions that would be physically painful and expensive to reverse. Sis made the argument that it was an arbitrary rule, my response was that for ~30k/year my parents earned the right to their one arbitrary rule. Dad admitted that if Sis had kept the secret, they couldn't have done anything about it. But she told all our relatives, so at that point she had to tell the parents too. Plus then she couldn't post facebook pictures that show the tattoo, which would be a severe constraint (she has two tattoos now, side ribcage and lower sternum -- and several pictures posted that show them at least partially).

I think the tattoo deal is an excellent idea.

Not necessarily tattoos specifically: I think it would be just as good if your parents said they would pay for tuition and accommodation as long as you wrote them a page long letter every year expressing your gratitude. Or if they made it a condition that you spent eight hours each winter volunteering in a soup kitchen.

The idea of having a specific requirement, even something totally arbitrary, is a really positive way to remind the recipients that they are not entitled to this money. Someone worked hard to earn it and now they have decided that you can have it as long as you follow certain conditions.

I'm not anti-tattoos, I got my first one during university, but would have happily waited for $30k per year.

I wouldn't doubt that your friend is making at least doubt what he made when he was self employed, even if he strongly disagrees. Not only do you have the classic gross VS net misunderstanding,

Something about that bolded part strikes me cold -- that a small business operator is conflicted about net versus gross... okay.. but that it is CLASSIC (as in often seen?) that is tragic.

Yep. A friend of mine told me she was making $4000 a month doing LuLaRoe. Then she says she is using almost all of it to "grow her business." While buying a van on credit to carry her inventory around. She really doesn't get that that means she is still in the red.

Clearly basic education has passed by so many...

I did maths until 18 and engineering until 23. Never got taught about revenue, net profit, gross profit etc. Had one 'financial management' class (as in a single two hour lesson, not a regular two hours per week) where we looked at a till receipt. That's it. In 18 years.

It's not necessarily students ignoring education.

That's kind of what I meant. There are so many people who have zero knowledge of basic taxes, profit, running a business, bookeeping, etc. And I'm not talking about in-depth knowledge, I mean 'enough to be able to have a small side-gig and not get utterly screwed by failing to understand basic concepts'.

In a nation that talks a good game about entepreneurship, and originality, and striking out on your own, etc... it seems like failing to address this particular chronic lack is not doing the collective good any favor.

I wouldn't doubt that your friend is making at least doubt what he made when he was self employed, even if he strongly disagrees. Not only do you have the classic gross VS net misunderstanding,

Something about that bolded part strikes me cold -- that a small business operator is conflicted about net versus gross... okay.. but that it is CLASSIC (as in often seen?) that is tragic.

Yep. A friend of mine told me she was making $4000 a month doing LuLaRoe. Then she says she is using almost all of it to "grow her business." While buying a van on credit to carry her inventory around. She really doesn't get that that means she is still in the red.

Clearly basic education has passed by so many...

I did maths until 18 and engineering until 23. Never got taught about revenue, net profit, gross profit etc. Had one 'financial management' class (as in a single two hour lesson, not a regular two hours per week) where we looked at a till receipt. That's it. In 18 years.

It's not necessarily students ignoring education.

All undergraduate engineering students (from all engineering disciplines, to clarify) had to take Engineering Economics and Engineering Statistics classes. It was your basic econ and stats classes, except that all examples and assignments were engineering based. Time value of Money, Three and Six Sigma, etc. Fail and you can't continue in engineering unless you retake the class and pass.

That's kind of what I meant. There are so many people who have zero knowledge of basic taxes, profit, running a business, bookeeping, etc. And I'm not talking about in-depth knowledge, I mean 'enough to be able to have a small side-gig and not get utterly screwed by failing to understand basic concepts'.

In a nation that talks a good game about entepreneurship, and originality, and striking out on your own, etc... it seems like failing to address this particular chronic lack is not doing the collective good any favor.

Then again the educational system as a whole is. well.

Cool, couldn't tell if your experience was lack of people paying attention to useful classes or lack of useful classes. It doesn't seem like a vast amount of extra teaching that would be needed (and far more useful than some of the rubbish I learnt).

All undergraduate engineering students (from all engineering disciplines, to clarify) had to take Engineering Economics and Engineering Statistics classes. It was your basic econ and stats classes, except that all examples and assignments were engineering based. Time value of Money, Three and Six Sigma, etc. Fail and you can't continue in engineering unless you retake the class and pass.

This would have been so useful for my first corporate job! Is this a standard requirement? It wasn't available on my (British) course.

All undergraduate engineering students (from all engineering disciplines, to clarify) had to take Engineering Economics and Engineering Statistics classes. It was your basic econ and stats classes, except that all examples and assignments were engineering based. Time value of Money, Three and Six Sigma, etc. Fail and you can't continue in engineering unless you retake the class and pass.

This would have been so useful for my first corporate job! Is this a standard requirement? It wasn't available on my (British) course.

I had to take (well, actually I think I might have challenged it... can't remember) a basic business management course during my engineering tech undergrad. It was basic review because of my background starting as early as high school when my mom started cutting me in on nonprofit admin stuff.

All undergraduate engineering students (from all engineering disciplines, to clarify) had to take Engineering Economics and Engineering Statistics classes. It was your basic econ and stats classes, except that all examples and assignments were engineering based. Time value of Money, Three and Six Sigma, etc. Fail and you can't continue in engineering unless you retake the class and pass.

This would have been so useful for my first corporate job! Is this a standard requirement? It wasn't available on my (British) course.

It wasn't required for my engineering degree (US). We did have a statistics course, but no direct finance courses. One of the senior level courses was a project design course where we had to estimate man-hours and cost, but wasn't directly finance related.

All undergraduate engineering students (from all engineering disciplines, to clarify) had to take Engineering Economics and Engineering Statistics classes. It was your basic econ and stats classes, except that all examples and assignments were engineering based. Time value of Money, Three and Six Sigma, etc. Fail and you can't continue in engineering unless you retake the class and pass.

This would have been so useful for my first corporate job! Is this a standard requirement? It wasn't available on my (British) course.

Right? This would be useful to almost everyone! I had friends at another university that had to take calculus for their business degrees; like, really?

I wouldn't doubt that your friend is making at least doubt what he made when he was self employed, even if he strongly disagrees. Not only do you have the classic gross VS net misunderstanding,

Something about that bolded part strikes me cold -- that a small business operator is conflicted about net versus gross... okay.. but that it is CLASSIC (as in often seen?) that is tragic.

Not so different from the number of w-2 employees who think they should be paid the same amount of money that they "bring in" to a company. Lack of understanding that a typical employee (in my profession) costs a company 1.3 to 3 times more than their salary. (Includes fringe, overhead, G&a).

I wouldn't doubt that your friend is making at least doubt what he made when he was self employed, even if he strongly disagrees. Not only do you have the classic gross VS net misunderstanding,

Something about that bolded part strikes me cold -- that a small business operator is conflicted about net versus gross... okay.. but that it is CLASSIC (as in often seen?) that is tragic.

Not so different from the number of w-2 employees who think they should be paid the same amount of money that they "bring in" to a company. Lack of understanding that a typical employee (in my profession) costs a company 1.3 to 3 times more than their salary. (Includes fringe, overhead, G&a).

But all those people were there before I started, so I should be paid what I bring in because I'm a special snowflake. /s

All undergraduate engineering students (from all engineering disciplines, to clarify) had to take Engineering Economics and Engineering Statistics classes. It was your basic econ and stats classes, except that all examples and assignments were engineering based. Time value of Money, Three and Six Sigma, etc. Fail and you can't continue in engineering unless you retake the class and pass.

This would have been so useful for my first corporate job! Is this a standard requirement? It wasn't available on my (British) course.

I think that most British engineering degrees are about 36 classes instead of 48, so maybe they had to cut somewhere?

All undergraduate engineering students (from all engineering disciplines, to clarify) had to take Engineering Economics and Engineering Statistics classes. It was your basic econ and stats classes, except that all examples and assignments were engineering based. Time value of Money, Three and Six Sigma, etc. Fail and you can't continue in engineering unless you retake the class and pass.

This would have been so useful for my first corporate job! Is this a standard requirement? It wasn't available on my (British) course.

I think that most British engineering degrees are about 36 classes instead of 48, so maybe they had to cut somewhere?

Each university picks their own format and class structure. A class isn't a standard unit of measure. I had four subjects in my first year, that was a full course load. A four year course is fairly standard. We don't base courses on another country's class structure.

All undergraduate engineering students (from all engineering disciplines, to clarify) had to take Engineering Economics and Engineering Statistics classes. It was your basic econ and stats classes, except that all examples and assignments were engineering based. Time value of Money, Three and Six Sigma, etc. Fail and you can't continue in engineering unless you retake the class and pass.

This would have been so useful for my first corporate job! Is this a standard requirement? It wasn't available on my (British) course.

I think that most British engineering degrees are about 36 classes instead of 48, so maybe they had to cut somewhere?

Each university picks their own format and class structure. A class isn't a standard unit of measure. I had four subjects in my first year, that was a full course load. A four year course is fairly standard. We don't base courses on another country's class structure.

Ok, I was thinking more of the three years (UK) rather than four to five year programs (Canada) so using a class count likely obscured what I was trying to say.

Ok, I was thinking more of the three years (UK) rather than four to five year programs (Canada) so using a class count likely obscured what I was trying to say.

Gotcha, 3 year courses were the default a generation ago, but 4 years are more typical for engineering now (based on a survey of my colleagues and the courses I was looking at studying 15 years ago).

In my opinion this is caused by the fact more people are graduating from university each year. Having a bachelor's degree has become much more common so people are turning to master's degrees to help differentiate themselves from the rest of the populace.

It's quite common in Engineering for universities to offer undergraduate master's which are, like you mentioned, four year courses. In 2007 I was one of those who opted for this and about 25% of my year did the same.

I was excited and told my dad about it. He asked what it was and I started to explain briefly about TFSA and RRSP accounts being maxed, so... but he said he didn't know anything about any of that stuff.

On the positive side, I'm not too worried about his future. He has a lot of land that he used to farm, and now rents out to other farmers which covers his expenses. Different strokes.

Not money related (they're all pretty frugal with decent, and often multiple incomes--if not frugal, then high income spending still within their means), but Thanksgiving and the quasi-political conversations.

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

No, same Aunt, that story you ready in the Boston Globe about someone getting a government pension wasn't true--because you didn't read it in the Boston Globe, you read it in the Boston Tribune, which is a fake news site.

Different Aunt: You keep pulling up things about smoking maryjane being bad while pregnant. No one is denying that, but that isn't the conversation. You also shouldn't have caffeine, or alcohol, or raw meat, or fish, or deli meat, or certain cheeses, or (should I go on?). At least make a sound argument; you have a Masters and you should be able to do that. What you're saying is like me saying that Hockey should be outlawed because if you get body checked while pregnant the child could die. No, you just shouldn't play hockey while pregnant. Not that hard.

Different Aunt: You keep pulling up things about smoking maryjane being bad while pregnant. No one is denying that, but that isn't the conversation. You also shouldn't have caffeine, or alcohol, or raw meat, or fish, or deli meat, or certain cheeses, or (should I go on?). At least make a sound argument; you have a Masters and you should be able to do that. What you're saying is like me saying that Hockey should be outlawed because if you get body checked while pregnant the child could die. No, you just shouldn't play hockey while pregnant. Not that hard.

Because I HAVE to nitpick... ;)

Large amounts of caffeine is not recommended while pregant (typically more than a cup or 2 a day) as there seems to be a corrolation between high caffeine usage and high miscarriage rates (NOT proven causation, corrolation - note the difference... and you know what else is corrolated to both higher miscarriage rates AND higher caffeine consumption? Maternal age. Just sayin'). Alcohol... is something you shouldn't have, but one knows what quantity is actually harmful and no ethics committee EVER would approve that study - typically speaking, a few sips does no harm and a half-bottle does, use sense, etc (or, in other words: 35 years ago, French women were told 'no more than a glass a day' and American women were told 'none at all, ever', and I don't think we can make the argument that the current generation of French people is worst off for it. Apply connon sense as needed.). Certain cheeses and deli meats are forbidden because of fear of listeria (because pregnant women are more vulnerable AND it increases miscarriage rates) but the last few wide-spread listeria outbreaks in America were in packaged salad greens and vegetable, and the absolute risks of getting listeria are still very low. Etc.

Which is to say: there's a difference between 'increased risk' and 'absolute risk', and there's a difference between 'generally recommended because it's easy to make general recommendations into public guidelines' and 'actually evaluated risks for this specific person and recommended in her situation'.

Which is also to say that I've had it up to HERE with people lecturing pregnant women as if they suddenly lose all autonomy by getting knocked up.

Different Aunt: You keep pulling up things about smoking maryjane being bad while pregnant. No one is denying that, but that isn't the conversation. You also shouldn't have caffeine, or alcohol, or raw meat, or fish, or deli meat, or certain cheeses, or (should I go on?). At least make a sound argument; you have a Masters and you should be able to do that. What you're saying is like me saying that Hockey should be outlawed because if you get body checked while pregnant the child could die. No, you just shouldn't play hockey while pregnant. Not that hard.

Because I HAVE to nitpick... ;)

Large amounts of caffeine is not recommended while pregant (typically more than a cup or 2 a day) as there seems to be a corrolation between high caffeine usage and high miscarriage rates (NOT proven causation, corrolation - note the difference... and you know what else is corrolated to both higher miscarriage rates AND higher caffeine consumption? Maternal age. Just sayin'). Alcohol... is something you shouldn't have, but one knows what quantity is actually harmful and no ethics committee EVER would approve that study - typically speaking, a few sips does no harm and a half-bottle does, use sense, etc (or, in other words: 35 years ago, French women were told 'no more than a glass a day' and American women were told 'none at all, ever', and I don't think we can make the argument that the current generation of French people is worst off for it. Apply connon sense as needed.). Certain cheeses and deli meats are forbidden because of fear of listeria (because pregnant women are more vulnerable AND it increases miscarriage rates) but the last few wide-spread listeria outbreaks in America were in packaged salad greens and vegetable, and the absolute risks of getting listeria are still very low. Etc.

Which is to say: there's a difference between 'increased risk' and 'absolute risk', and there's a difference between 'generally recommended because it's easy to make general recommendations into public guidelines' and 'actually evaluated risks for this specific person and recommended in her situation'.

Which is also to say that I've had it up to HERE with people lecturing pregnant women as if they suddenly lose all autonomy by getting knocked up.

Obviously, my post was not a pregnancy advice post--just some general guidelines.

Different Aunt: You keep pulling up things about smoking maryjane being bad while pregnant. No one is denying that, but that isn't the conversation. You also shouldn't have caffeine, or alcohol, or raw meat, or fish, or deli meat, or certain cheeses, or (should I go on?). At least make a sound argument; you have a Masters and you should be able to do that. What you're saying is like me saying that Hockey should be outlawed because if you get body checked while pregnant the child could die. No, you just shouldn't play hockey while pregnant. Not that hard.

Because I HAVE to nitpick... ;)

Large amounts of caffeine is not recommended while pregant (typically more than a cup or 2 a day) as there seems to be a corrolation between high caffeine usage and high miscarriage rates (NOT proven causation, corrolation - note the difference... and you know what else is corrolated to both higher miscarriage rates AND higher caffeine consumption? Maternal age. Just sayin'). Alcohol... is something you shouldn't have, but one knows what quantity is actually harmful and no ethics committee EVER would approve that study - typically speaking, a few sips does no harm and a half-bottle does, use sense, etc (or, in other words: 35 years ago, French women were told 'no more than a glass a day' and American women were told 'none at all, ever', and I don't think we can make the argument that the current generation of French people is worst off for it. Apply connon sense as needed.). Certain cheeses and deli meats are forbidden because of fear of listeria (because pregnant women are more vulnerable AND it increases miscarriage rates) but the last few wide-spread listeria outbreaks in America were in packaged salad greens and vegetable, and the absolute risks of getting listeria are still very low. Etc.

Which is to say: there's a difference between 'increased risk' and 'absolute risk', and there's a difference between 'generally recommended because it's easy to make general recommendations into public guidelines' and 'actually evaluated risks for this specific person and recommended in her situation'.

Which is also to say that I've had it up to HERE with people lecturing pregnant women as if they suddenly lose all autonomy by getting knocked up.

Obviously, my post was not a pregnancy advice post--just some general guidelines.

Yeah, I know, but I'm currently pregnant and my colleagues seem to take it as an invitation to give (shitty) advice on every single aspect of my life and I am a liiiiiiiiittle on edge about it right now.

If by "a little on edge" we mean "one missed breath from slapping someone".

And the next person who asks me about the state of my fucking CERVIX while at work is gonna get it. FYI.

Different Aunt: You keep pulling up things about smoking maryjane being bad while pregnant. No one is denying that, but that isn't the conversation. You also shouldn't have caffeine, or alcohol, or raw meat, or fish, or deli meat, or certain cheeses, or (should I go on?). At least make a sound argument; you have a Masters and you should be able to do that. What you're saying is like me saying that Hockey should be outlawed because if you get body checked while pregnant the child could die. No, you just shouldn't play hockey while pregnant. Not that hard.

Because I HAVE to nitpick... ;)

Large amounts of caffeine is not recommended while pregant (typically more than a cup or 2 a day) as there seems to be a corrolation between high caffeine usage and high miscarriage rates (NOT proven causation, corrolation - note the difference... and you know what else is corrolated to both higher miscarriage rates AND higher caffeine consumption? Maternal age. Just sayin'). Alcohol... is something you shouldn't have, but one knows what quantity is actually harmful and no ethics committee EVER would approve that study - typically speaking, a few sips does no harm and a half-bottle does, use sense, etc (or, in other words: 35 years ago, French women were told 'no more than a glass a day' and American women were told 'none at all, ever', and I don't think we can make the argument that the current generation of French people is worst off for it. Apply connon sense as needed.). Certain cheeses and deli meats are forbidden because of fear of listeria (because pregnant women are more vulnerable AND it increases miscarriage rates) but the last few wide-spread listeria outbreaks in America were in packaged salad greens and vegetable, and the absolute risks of getting listeria are still very low. Etc.

Which is to say: there's a difference between 'increased risk' and 'absolute risk', and there's a difference between 'generally recommended because it's easy to make general recommendations into public guidelines' and 'actually evaluated risks for this specific person and recommended in her situation'.

Which is also to say that I've had it up to HERE with people lecturing pregnant women as if they suddenly lose all autonomy by getting knocked up.

Obviously, my post was not a pregnancy advice post--just some general guidelines.

Yeah, I know, but I'm currently pregnant and my colleagues seem to take it as an invitation to give (shitty) advice on every single aspect of my life and I am a liiiiiiiiittle on edge about it right now.

If by "a little on edge" we mean "one missed breath from slapping someone".

And the next person who asks me about the state of my fucking CERVIX while at work is gonna get it. FYI.

Different Aunt: You keep pulling up things about smoking maryjane being bad while pregnant. No one is denying that, but that isn't the conversation. You also shouldn't have caffeine, or alcohol, or raw meat, or fish, or deli meat, or certain cheeses, or (should I go on?). At least make a sound argument; you have a Masters and you should be able to do that. What you're saying is like me saying that Hockey should be outlawed because if you get body checked while pregnant the child could die. No, you just shouldn't play hockey while pregnant. Not that hard.

Because I HAVE to nitpick... ;)

Large amounts of caffeine is not recommended while pregant (typically more than a cup or 2 a day) as there seems to be a corrolation between high caffeine usage and high miscarriage rates (NOT proven causation, corrolation - note the difference... and you know what else is corrolated to both higher miscarriage rates AND higher caffeine consumption? Maternal age. Just sayin'). Alcohol... is something you shouldn't have, but one knows what quantity is actually harmful and no ethics committee EVER would approve that study - typically speaking, a few sips does no harm and a half-bottle does, use sense, etc (or, in other words: 35 years ago, French women were told 'no more than a glass a day' and American women were told 'none at all, ever', and I don't think we can make the argument that the current generation of French people is worst off for it. Apply connon sense as needed.). Certain cheeses and deli meats are forbidden because of fear of listeria (because pregnant women are more vulnerable AND it increases miscarriage rates) but the last few wide-spread listeria outbreaks in America were in packaged salad greens and vegetable, and the absolute risks of getting listeria are still very low. Etc.

Which is to say: there's a difference between 'increased risk' and 'absolute risk', and there's a difference between 'generally recommended because it's easy to make general recommendations into public guidelines' and 'actually evaluated risks for this specific person and recommended in her situation'.

Which is also to say that I've had it up to HERE with people lecturing pregnant women as if they suddenly lose all autonomy by getting knocked up.

Obviously, my post was not a pregnancy advice post--just some general guidelines.

Yeah, I know, but I'm currently pregnant and my colleagues seem to take it as an invitation to give (shitty) advice on every single aspect of my life and I am a liiiiiiiiittle on edge about it right now.

If by "a little on edge" we mean "one missed breath from slapping someone".

And the next person who asks me about the state of my fucking CERVIX while at work is gonna get it. FYI.

So, what state is your fucking cervix in?

Fortunately for you, probably a different country than you're located... ;)

Different Aunt: You keep pulling up things about smoking maryjane being bad while pregnant. No one is denying that, but that isn't the conversation. You also shouldn't have caffeine, or alcohol, or raw meat, or fish, or deli meat, or certain cheeses, or (should I go on?). At least make a sound argument; you have a Masters and you should be able to do that. What you're saying is like me saying that Hockey should be outlawed because if you get body checked while pregnant the child could die. No, you just shouldn't play hockey while pregnant. Not that hard.

Because I HAVE to nitpick... ;)

Large amounts of caffeine is not recommended while pregant (typically more than a cup or 2 a day) as there seems to be a corrolation between high caffeine usage and high miscarriage rates (NOT proven causation, corrolation - note the difference... and you know what else is corrolated to both higher miscarriage rates AND higher caffeine consumption? Maternal age. Just sayin'). Alcohol... is something you shouldn't have, but one knows what quantity is actually harmful and no ethics committee EVER would approve that study - typically speaking, a few sips does no harm and a half-bottle does, use sense, etc (or, in other words: 35 years ago, French women were told 'no more than a glass a day' and American women were told 'none at all, ever', and I don't think we can make the argument that the current generation of French people is worst off for it. Apply connon sense as needed.). Certain cheeses and deli meats are forbidden because of fear of listeria (because pregnant women are more vulnerable AND it increases miscarriage rates) but the last few wide-spread listeria outbreaks in America were in packaged salad greens and vegetable, and the absolute risks of getting listeria are still very low. Etc.

Which is to say: there's a difference between 'increased risk' and 'absolute risk', and there's a difference between 'generally recommended because it's easy to make general recommendations into public guidelines' and 'actually evaluated risks for this specific person and recommended in her situation'.

Which is also to say that I've had it up to HERE with people lecturing pregnant women as if they suddenly lose all autonomy by getting knocked up.

Obviously, my post was not a pregnancy advice post--just some general guidelines.

Yeah, I know, but I'm currently pregnant and my colleagues seem to take it as an invitation to give (shitty) advice on every single aspect of my life and I am a liiiiiiiiittle on edge about it right now.

If by "a little on edge" we mean "one missed breath from slapping someone".

And the next person who asks me about the state of my fucking CERVIX while at work is gonna get it. FYI.

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

Not really. SSI doesn't come from the same taxes as standard social security. And we did tell her SSI.

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

Not really. SSI doesn't come from the same taxes as standard social security. And we did tell her SSI.

If you are talking United States, then yes really. "Social Security" is actually the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and includes retirement benefits, survivors benefits, and disability benefits. All of these components are funded through the same payroll taxes, but then go into two separate trust funds -- the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Note that "excess funds" (measured as the amount paid in by current workers being more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries) go into the U.S. Treasury and can be used for non-Social Security purposes, in exchange for special government securities that go into the trust accounts.

Perhaps you are thinking of Medicare as the similar concept but that is funded from a different tax than Social Security? Because it is true that those are two separate line items.

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

Not really. SSI doesn't come from the same taxes as standard social security. And we did tell her SSI.

If you are talking United States, then yes really. "Social Security" is actually the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and includes retirement benefits, survivors benefits, and disability benefits. All of these components are funded through the same payroll taxes, but then go into two separate trust funds -- the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Note that "excess funds" (measured as the amount paid in by current workers being more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries) go into the U.S. Treasury and can be used for non-Social Security purposes, in exchange for special government securities that go into the trust accounts.

Perhaps you are thinking of Medicare as the similar concept but that is funded from a different tax than Social Security? Because it is true that those are two separate line items.

SSI--Supplemental Security Income. It comes from the Treasury's general funds, not the Social Security trust fund, if my minor in economics is still fresh enough in my head (it might not be).

We don't actually know that was what she was on, but we know it wasn't "Social Security" as my Aunt was describing it ("she never paid a dime into it"... well, no, she's got cerebral palsy and couldn't work). Likely you're right and it was Medicare (or more likely, Medicaid). At the end of the day though, I really don't care what the woman is on as long as she is getting reasonable care.

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

Not really. SSI doesn't come from the same taxes as standard social security. And we did tell her SSI.

If you are talking United States, then yes really. "Social Security" is actually the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and includes retirement benefits, survivors benefits, and disability benefits. All of these components are funded through the same payroll taxes, but then go into two separate trust funds -- the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Note that "excess funds" (measured as the amount paid in by current workers being more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries) go into the U.S. Treasury and can be used for non-Social Security purposes, in exchange for special government securities that go into the trust accounts.

Perhaps you are thinking of Medicare as the similar concept but that is funded from a different tax than Social Security? Because it is true that those are two separate line items.

SSI--Supplemental Security Income. It comes from the Treasury's general funds, not the Social Security trust fund, if my minor in economics is still fresh enough in my head (it might not be).

Since Bill Clinton, the incoming money to the trust fund and general funds have been effectively merged (that is one of the ways he was able to claim a surplus). It is because of this merging that people occasionally say that the trust fund has been drained. The surplus from money for the fund was diverted for the past two decades to make up the difference between the budget minus general funds & debt accumulation. Social Security does have an IOU from general funds but people on the right like Paul Ryan think that IOU will not be honored. The view of the IOU is mixed on the left.

No, Aunt, the woman in your story is not on Social Security, she's on disability. And in any case, someone who has Cerebral Palsy and no family is not the drain on the system I'm worried about.

Since we're already nitpicking, disability benefits actually do fall within Social Security (unless you're talking about payments from a disability insurance policy). But yeah, I agree with your broader point. :-)

Not really. SSI doesn't come from the same taxes as standard social security. And we did tell her SSI.

If you are talking United States, then yes really. "Social Security" is actually the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and includes retirement benefits, survivors benefits, and disability benefits. All of these components are funded through the same payroll taxes, but then go into two separate trust funds -- the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Note that "excess funds" (measured as the amount paid in by current workers being more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries) go into the U.S. Treasury and can be used for non-Social Security purposes, in exchange for special government securities that go into the trust accounts.

Perhaps you are thinking of Medicare as the similar concept but that is funded from a different tax than Social Security? Because it is true that those are two separate line items.

SSI--Supplemental Security Income. It comes from the Treasury's general funds, not the Social Security trust fund, if my minor in economics is still fresh enough in my head (it might not be).

We don't actually know that was what she was on, but we know it wasn't "Social Security" as my Aunt was describing it ("she never paid a dime into it"... well, no, she's got cerebral palsy and couldn't work). Likely you're right and it was Medicare (or more likely, Medicaid). At the end of the day though, I really don't care what the woman is on as long as she is getting reasonable care.

She could have gotten SSDI through her parents as a child (continuing as an adult) along with SSI if the SSDI wasn't too much. SSI gives Medicaid, SSDI gives Medicare (and SSDI converts to normal SS upon reaching 62).

This woman received subsidised housing, food stamps and other government support, but proudly proclaimed that she "never went on welfare" because she didn't receive cash payments.

This! Nothing irritates me more than people who ignore the welfare benefits they receive and play it off like they earned everything they have. My brother and his wife and children live in subsidized housing (they pay around $30 per month for a 3 bedroom apartment) and they get food stamps, but my mom makes a big deal out of the fact that "they aren't on welfare." Are you f*cking kidding me?! Subsidized housing and food stamps are part of the welfare program, and the single largest component of the welfare program is the earned income tax credit, which they receive every year! My mom also tries to say that she only got welfare once or twice while we were growing up. In reality, we always lived in subsidized housing, we always received food stamps, we got food and clothes from the food bank, and after only working a bare minimum throughout the year, she always got more back at tax time than she came close to paying in, because of EITC. Yet they are all ignorant voters* who exclusively vote Republican because they think they've worked hard for the things they have and they shouldn't have to support drains on the system who don't support themselves. I've pointed out to them that they benefit from the welfare programs that exist and they are voting for the people who say they are going to get rid of those systems. They argue with me that they don't receive welfare and "the lazy leeches" shouldn't be able to take their hard earned money. Yet they are unemployed 75% of the year and don't realize the "lazy leeches" the politicians are talking about are them.

*I'm not intending to say all Republican voters are ignorant, I'm saying my family members are ignorant voters because they don't take the time to understand the issues and they vote for people who want to take away the benefits they live on, without realizing it.

Yet they are all ignorant voters* who exclusively vote Republican because they think they've worked hard for the things they have and they shouldn't have to support drains on the system who don't support themselves. I've pointed out to them that they benefit from the welfare programs that exist and they are voting for the people who say they are going to get rid of those systems. They argue with me that they don't receive welfare and "the lazy leeches" shouldn't be able to take their hard earned money. Yet they are unemployed 75% of the year and don't realize the "lazy leeches" the politicians are talking about are them.

I feel like such people think that when they (white people) use welfare benefits it's ok because they somehow all paid into the system but when others (non-white people) use it, "THEY"RE ABUSING THE SYSTEM, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAID FOR THEIR LAZINESS!"

Yet they are all ignorant voters* who exclusively vote Republican because they think they've worked hard for the things they have and they shouldn't have to support drains on the system who don't support themselves. I've pointed out to them that they benefit from the welfare programs that exist and they are voting for the people who say they are going to get rid of those systems. They argue with me that they don't receive welfare and "the lazy leeches" shouldn't be able to take their hard earned money. Yet they are unemployed 75% of the year and don't realize the "lazy leeches" the politicians are talking about are them.

I feel like such people think that when they (white people) use welfare benefits it's ok because they somehow all paid into the system but when others (non-white people) use it, "THEY"RE ABUSING THE SYSTEM, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAID FOR THEIR LAZINESS!"

Exactly! And, being an economist who studies this exact system makes trips back home extremely stressful and annoying.

My great aunt just lectured me for an hour, that I need to have enough saved up, to replace my washing machine and would not stop when I said I'm covered.She's not per se wrong, but I don't worry to much about my washing machine with 75k saved up.The way she said it implied, they just recently managed to save up enough of an emergency fund to cover a washing machine at the ripe age of 70.

My great aunt just lectured me for an hour, that I need to have enough saved up, to replace my washing machine and would not stop when I said I'm covered.She's not per se wrong, but I don't worry to much about my washing machine with 75k saved up.The way she said it implied, they just recently managed to save up enough of an emergency fund to cover a washing machine at the ripe age of 70.

THIS, this is why I do what I do.

Was the lecture at least well meaning? Are you going to tell her next time that you've followed her advice and now have a washing machine fund?

My great aunt just lectured me for an hour, that I need to have enough saved up, to replace my washing machine and would not stop when I said I'm covered.She's not per se wrong, but I don't worry to much about my washing machine with 75k saved up.The way she said it implied, they just recently managed to save up enough of an emergency fund to cover a washing machine at the ripe age of 70.

THIS, this is why I do what I do.

Was the lecture at least well meaning? Are you going to tell her next time that you've followed her advice and now have a washing machine fund?

I'm really not sure what would happen if any of my relatives knew how much I earn and how much I save. I guess it would not go well.As of now they all think I'm poor as fuck because I sold my car and didn't buy a new one.